Get Smarter About China

Menu

Chinese Annual Household Income Understated By Almost 10 Trillion RMB?

"Sinocism is the Presidential Daily Brief for China hands"- Evan Osnos, New Yorker Correspondent and National Book Award Winner

Credit Suisse has published a report that tries to quantify the scale of hidden, or unreported, income in China. The bank sponsored Professor Wang Xiaolu of the China Reform Foundation for this report, his second study of China’s grey income and income distribution.

Professor Wang makes some startling and conclusions that if accurate have significant ramifications for how we should view China’s economic development, Chinese consumption activity (see Pettis today for his dim view of Chinese consumption; not sure he has seen this report) the possible existence of property bubbles, the chances for a devaluation of the Renminbi if the Yuan were liberalized, and the challenges the Chinese government faces in maintaining social stability. If his data are correct, it may also mean that many of the concerns about Chinese government debt are overblown, as the government has much greater potential than expected increase revenue in the future, through optimizing the tax code and tax collection. Professor Wang concludes that:

Almost Rmb10 tn in hidden income, or 30% of GDP. Based on a creative survey technique focusing on the correlation between income and spending patterns, and with over 4,000 samples across 19 provinces in China, Prof. Wang estimates that the per-capita disposable income of urban Chinese households in 2008 should be Rmb32,154, 90% above the official data. Total hidden income could total Rmb9.3 tn, 30% of GDP, with about 63% of hidden income in the hands of the top 10% of urban households.

The potential of China’s consumer market is even bigger than we expected. Most investors are aware that Chinese income statistics are underestimated, but the exact amount is subject to much speculation. The size of grey income revealed by Prof. Wang is striking and could help investors to understand the rationale of the Chinese government’s recent strong push for faster wage growth and a more equitable income distribution pattern – which would also help boost overall consumption.

The report further states that:

The analysis shows that the top-10% of households should have a per-capita disposable income of Rmb139,000 in 2008, instead of the official data of Rmb44,000. High income households (the top 20-30%) should have a per-capita disposable income of Rmb55,000, instead of the officially announced Rmb26,000. Some 80% of hidden income, not reflected in the official survey, belongs to the top 20% of households. Two thirds of the hidden income comes from the top 10% of households.

After including the hidden income, urban disposable income per capita reaches Rmb32,000, almost double that of the official data. Total household disposable income in 2008 is estimated to be Rmb23.2 tn, Rmb9.3 tn higher than the Rmb14 tn calculated based on the official NBS household income survey and Rmb5.4 tn higher than the Rmb17.9 tn total calculated by the Flow of Funds (FOF) accounts in the Economic Census This Rmb5.4 tn is referred to as grey income.

Compared with the adjusted household income in 2005, both the hidden income (Rmb9.3 tn) or grey income (Rmb5.4 tn) in 2008 doubled, rising at a much faster pace than nominal GDP between 2005 and 2008. Due to the existence of grey income, GDP and national income could be underestimated. According to our estimation, grey income in 2008 should total around 15% of national income, up from 13% in 2005.

The existence of hidden income has expanded the income gap remarkably, in our opinion. The per-capita income gap between the incomes of the top 10% and bottom 10% of urban residents rose from 9x (based on the official data) to 26x, after the adjustment. The per capita income gap between the top 10% of urban households and bottom 10% of rural households is adjusted from 23x based on the official data to 65x. Taking into account the existence of hidden income, the Gini coefficient of household income distribution is remarkably higher than the 0.47-0.50 calculated by different experts.

Such a concentration of hidden income in high-income groups demonstrates that much of it is not about simple statistical problems in the household survey but potentially income from illegal sources. Such income includes income without clear definition under laws and regulations in addition to its legitimacy, as well as income from an unidentifiable sources which is practically illegal. The facts show that grey income has its origins in the misuse of power and is closely connected with corruption.

The widespread existence of grey income has significantly distorted national income distribution and reveals the lagging development in social reforms compared with economic reforms. Once government power is united with capital, the free competition of the market economy begins to be replaced by a monopoly of crony capitalism, leading to disparity in income and property distribution, lower economic efficiency and acute social conflicts.

Professor Wang’s conclusions cast doubt on much of the arguments that China is in the throws of a epic property bubble. As he writes:

based on the official average urban income from China’s National Statistics Bureau (NSB), China’s current affordability ratio is 8x (that is, it takes eight years’ average income to buy an average residential property unit) – lower than for city states, such as Singapore (probably not a relevant comparison), but significantly higher than for large and developed continental nations such as the US. However, if we consider the impact of the grey income, China’s national affordability ratio drops to 4x –similar to that in the US. If the effect of grey income is included, China’s Gini index is likely to be more than 0.55 – similar to many South American countries’. This raises the question over whether strong housing demand in China is mainly driven by self-use or investment by rich people. We think both are important drivers.

Professor Wang recommends a combination of wage increases, which i already happening, and reforms to the tax system:

China should not only raise wages, but optimise its tax system to narrow the wealth gap. For example, we expect the government to implement property tax, which should increase the holding costs for rich people’s property investments.

If you use RSS you can subscribe to this blog’s feed here, and if you use Twitter you can follow my more frequent updates @niubi, and if you use Sina Weibo you can follow me here. You can also follow my blogging on digital media and the Internet in China at DigiCha.

Post navigation

19 thoughts on “Chinese Annual Household Income Understated By Almost 10 Trillion RMB?”

I think it is very spurious to suggest that the average Chinese citizen gets 40-50% of income from illegal activities, especially folks who would simply be office workers…?

I think the explanation for the results is off base. Try this. I think you might find similar results in the U.S. If the government asks you, you give them your true income; because if you lied to them they could throw you into jail (or execute you in China). If a friend asks how much you make, you would tend to exaggerate to make yourself look better. Appearances (or face) is important: nice house, nice car, good income… The penalty to lie to friends is lesser, yet not keeping up with appearances may affect your social standing.

Bradford sounds over defensive and then went on the offensive. Finally, comes the “Lying to Friend” theory. After having “thought” about Bradford’s comments, just as Bradford “thought” about the article, i’d “think” Bradford is of Chinese decent defending “the motherland”. More specifically, defending the communist regime of China who has been corrupting the land, culture & people for more than 60 years. Hence, corruption from the top to the bottom of the hierarchy. Sad, but true (“o)

I think it is very spurious to suggest that the average Chinese citizen gets 40-50% of income from illegal activities, especially folks who would simply be office workers…?

I think the explanation for the results is off base. Try this. I think you might find similar results in the U.S. If the government asks you, you give them your true income; because if you lied to them they could throw you into jail (or execute you in China). If a friend asks how much you make, you would tend to exaggerate to make yourself look better. Appearances (or face) is important: nice house, nice car, good income… The penalty to lie to friends is lesser, yet not keeping up with appearances may affect your social standing.

Agree 100%. Every Chinese small businessmen I have met boasts about how much tax they DON’T pay. This must contribute to a significant amount of grey income. Bradford also needs to consider the still considerable practice of “hong bao” and “consulting”, through which even some (but not all) average clerical or office workers receives non-taxable income to ensure they help with procurement contracts, supplier relationships, and customer relationships. Also consider the practice of submitting fake receipts for meals and other entertainment which are reimbursed in cash. Some companies also understate how much they pay their average office workers as well, so that their workers are happy and have more money in their pocket to spend.

Agree 100%. Every Chinese small businessmen I have met boasts about how much tax they DON'T pay. This must contribute to a significant amount of grey income. Bradford also needs to consider the still considerable practice of “hong bao” and “consulting”, through which even some (but not all) average clerical or office workers receives non-taxable income to ensure they help with procurement contracts, supplier relationships, and customer relationships. Also consider the practice of submitting fake receipts for meals and other entertainment which are reimbursed in cash. Some companies also understate how much they pay their average office workers as well, so that their workers are happy and have more money in their pocket to spend.

Grey income is not necessarily illegal is not nec. from illegal activities. In the case of the office worker, it could be that they get paid 3000 rmb/mo, but only 2000 rmb is recorded and taxed. The rest is in the form of reimbursed “expenses” – thus total income is 50% higher than recorded. I have friends that were paid this way. It is fairly common.

The second comment about the “consulting” is right on as well. I deal with a lot of professional services people in China from lawyers to surveyors to accountants. I would say about 75% of the people i come into contact with have “side deals” of some type going on away from their employer. Those that don’t tend to be the least clued in. As far as I know, this isn’t illegal (though it may go against employment contracts in some cases). And as far as I know, China doesn’t have a 1099 type of reporting system to capture all this income.

Finally, I disagree with the fact that the methodology would lead to an upward skew. More likely than not it would skew in the opposite direction. This is down to cultural differences. Even the more showy ‘new rich’ in China are not likely to disclose the full extent of their wealth, even to a close friend. You never know how it can be used against you.

The point about the property market is very important as well… Not only interms of the skew on affordability metrics, but also as a demand driver. Property is a great way to store and launder grey income outside the banking system.

Grey income is not necessarily illegal is not nec. from illegal activities. In the case of the office worker, it could be that they get paid 3000 rmb/mo, but only 2000 rmb is recorded and taxed. The rest is in the form of reimbursed “expenses” – thus total income is 50% higher than recorded. I have friends that were paid this way. It is fairly common.

The second comment about the “consulting” is right on as well. I deal with a lot of professional services people in China from lawyers to surveyors to accountants. I would say about 75% of the people i come into contact with have “side deals” of some type going on away from their employer. Those that don't tend to be the least clued in. As far as I know, this isn't illegal (though it may go against employment contracts in some cases). And as far as I know, China doesn't have a 1099 type of reporting system to capture all this income.

Finally, I disagree with the fact that the methodology would lead to an upward skew. More likely than not it would skew in the opposite direction. This is down to cultural differences. Even the more showy 'new rich' in China are not likely to disclose the full extent of their wealth, even to a close friend. You never know how it can be used against you.

The point about the property market is very important as well… Not only interms of the skew on affordability metrics, but also as a demand driver. Property is a great way to store and launder grey income outside the banking system.

Bradford sounds over defensive and then went on the offensive. Finally, comes the “Lying to Friend” theory. After having “thought” about Bradford’s comments, just as Bradford “thought” about the article, i’d “think” Bradford is of Chinese decent defending “the motherland”. More specifically, defending the communist regime of China who has been corrupting the land, culture & people for more than 60 years. Hence, corruption from the top to the bottom of the hierarchy. Sad, but true (“o)

Until the financialization and corporatization of the economy after 1989, Taiwan was quite similar. I believe Lee Sheng-yi’s Money and Finance in the Development of Taiwan has an estimate of 14% for the size of Taiwan’s gray economy. In 1991 I read a government paper that said it was 60-80% of the size of the nominal economy but I stupidly didn’t keep that paper.

Until the financialization and corporatization of the economy after 1989, Taiwan was quite similar. I believe Lee Sheng-yi’s Money and Finance in the Development of Taiwan has an estimate of 14% for the size of Taiwan’s gray economy. In 1991 I read a government paper that said it was 60-80% of the size of the nominal economy but I stupidly didn’t keep that paper.